Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 99–121 | Cite as

Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection

Development Article

Abstract

There are increasing calls to prepare K-12 students to use computational tools and principles when exploring scientific or mathematical phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether and how constructionist computer-supported collaborative environments can explicitly engage students in this practice. The Categorizer is a Javascript-based interactive gallery that allows members of a learning community to contribute computational artifacts they have constructed to a shared collection. Learners can then analyze the collection of artifacts, and sort them into user-defined categories. In a formative case study of the Categorizer for a fractal activity in three middle grade (ages 11–14) classrooms, there was evidence that participating students began to evaluate fractals based on structural and mathematical properties, and afterward could create algorithms that would generate fractals with particular area reduction rates. Further analysis revealed that students’ construction and categorization experiences could be better integrated by explicitly scaffolding discussion and negotiation of the categorization schemes they develop. This led to the development of a new module that enables teachers and students to explore points of agreement and disagreement across student categorization schemes. I conclude with a description of limitations of the study and environment, implications for the broader community, and future work.

Keywords

Computational thinking Constructionism Collaborative environments Middle school Disciplinary practices Mathematics education 

References

  1. Alligood, K. T., Sauer, T. D., & Yorke, J. A. (2000). Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, D. H., & Borwein, J. M. (2011). Exploratory experimentation and computation. Notices of the AMS, 58(10), 1410–1419.Google Scholar
  4. Baish, J. W., & Jain, R. K. (2000). Fractals and cancer. Cancer Research, 60(14), 3683–3688.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.Google Scholar
  6. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.
  7. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 81–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, C., White, T., Davis, S., & Hegedus, S. (2013). SimCalc and the networked classroom. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics (pp. 99–121). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(22), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandrasekharan, S. (2009). Building to discover: A common coding model. Cognitive Science, 33(6), 1059–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2008). STEM-based computational modeling for technology education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 20–27.Google Scholar
  13. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/Math.
  16. de Jong, T., Weinberger, A., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 883–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demko, S., Hodges, L., & Naylor, B. (1985). Construction of fractal objects with iterated function systems. AC SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 19(3), 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dierbach, C., Hochheiser, H., Collins, S., Jerome, G., Ariza, C., Kelleher, T., & Kaza, S. (2011). A model for piloting pathways for computational thinking in a general education curriculum. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 257–262). ACM.Google Scholar
  19. diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). The collaboratory notebook. Communications of the ACM, 39, 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. In International Symposium on Wikis: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis (Vol. 21, No. 25, pp. 31–42).Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 183–187). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures. ZDM, 41(4), 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (2011). Representational tools for understanding complex computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Analyzing Interactions in CSCL, 12, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Advanced designs for the technologies of learning: Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77–116). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Kahn, K. (1996). ToonTalk™: An animated programming environment for children. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 7(2), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Khan, S. (2008). The case in case-based design of educational software: A methodological interrogation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2005). TinkerPlots: Dynamic data exploration [Computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. V. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  36. Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 429–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2003). Fractal tool [computer software]. NCTM Illuminations Resource Website, Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.aspx?ID=17.
  41. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Research Council Committee on Science Learning, & Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. (2007). In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2006). Exploring mathematics through construction and collaboration. In: R. K Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 389–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.Google Scholar
  47. Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at the Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 60–95). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A., & Zola, J. (2000). AgentSheets: End-user programmable simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(3), 351.Google Scholar
  49. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 265–269). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  50. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Romberg, T. A., & Kaput, J. J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.) Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  52. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slotta, J. D., & Aleahmad, T. (2009). WISE technology lessons: Moving from a local proprietary system to a global open source framework. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(2), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Techsmith Corporation (2004). Camtasia [Computer software].Google Scholar
  57. Tissenbaum, M., Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2012). Co-designing collaborative smart classroom curriculum for secondary school science. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(3), 327–352.Google Scholar
  58. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. White, T. (2009). Encrypted objects and decryption processes: Problem-solving with functions in a learning environment based on cryptography. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [Computer Software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  61. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CS: AGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations